Case 1:16-cv-07494 Document 1 Filed 09/26/16 Page 1 of 14

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
_________________________________________X
R. BYRON HORD and CURTIS SCOON
Plaintiffs,

Case No.:
-againstVERIFIED COMPLAINT
JURY TRIAL DEMANDED

CURTIS JACKSON, G-UNIT FILMS,
CBS TELEVISION and
STARZ ENTERTAINMENT,
“JOHN DOE ENTITIES” 1-10 and
“JOHN DOES” 1-10,
Defendants,
_________________________________________X
Plaintiffs, R. BYRON HORD and CURTIS SCOON, through their attorneys, KEITH
WHITE, PLLC., KENNETH J. MONTGOMERY, PLLC and ALEX PADILLA, complaining of
the defendants, CURTIS JACKSON and STARZ ENTERTAINMENT, upon information and
belief, sets forth and alleges as follows:
SUMMARY OF CLAIMS
1.

Plaintiffs commence this action to: (a) enjoin Defendants from future

infringement of Plaintiffs’ duly copyrighted and registered original work-a script for the pilot
episode of an original teleplay based upon an African-American Protagonist’s work as a drug
dealer and subsequent attempts to launder his money and then “go legit” while struggling with
the balance between his friendship with an irish gangster and his female love-interest, entitled
“Dangerous” (the “Original Work”)--(b) recover damages arising from Defendants’ infringement
of Plaintiffs’ copyright in the Original Work and (c) seek other declaratory relief.

 Case 1:16-cv-07494 Document 1 Filed 09/26/16 Page 2 of 14

2.

The Defendants are all active participants in the writing, production and national

broadcasting of a derivative audiovisual work, substantially similar to Plaintiffs’ copyrighted
Original Work, entitled “Power” which was first aired by Defendant, Starz Entertainment
(“Starz”) on June 07, 2014 (the “Infringing Work”).

____________________________

JURISDICTION AND VENUE
3.

This Court has jurisdiction over this action pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§1331, 1338(a)

and 1367(a) as it arises under the Copyright Act of 1976, 17 U.S.C. §101 et seq. (the “Act”) and
pursuant to the principles of supplemental jurisdiction.
4.

Venue is proper in this district pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§1391(b) and 1400(a) in

that Defendants are subject to personal jurisdiction in the Southern District of New York by
virtue of Defendants’ broadcast of the infringing work to this jurisdiction.

PARTIES
5.

Plaintiff Mr. Curtis Scoon (“Mr. Scoon”), is a citizen of the United States and a

resident of the State of Maryland, having an address of 8653 16th Street, Ste 7264 Silver Spring,
Maryland 20907.
6.

Plaintiff R Byron Hord (“Hord”) is a citizen of the United States and a resident of

the state of Nevada, having an address of 2312 N. Green Valley, Henderson, NV 89014.
7.

Defendant Curtis Jackson (“Mr. Jackson”), is a citizen of the United States and a

resident of the State of New York, having a contact address care of William Morris Endeavor,

 Case 1:16-cv-07494 Document 1 Filed 09/26/16 Page 3 of 14

1325 Avenue of the Americas, New York, NY 10019, and is the executive producer of the
Infringing Work.
8.

Defendant G-UNIT FILMS AND TELEVISION (“G-UNIT”) is a New York

corporation with a principal place of business at 100 Wall Street, 20th Floor, New York, New
York 10005.
9.

Defendant CBS TELEVISION (“CBS”) is a Delaware corporation with a

principal place of business at 51 West 52nd Street, New York, New York. CBS is the Producer
and Distributor of the Infringing Work.
10.

Defendant STARZ ENTERTAINMENT (“STARZ”), is a Delaware corporation

with a principal place of business at 8900 Liberty Circle, Englewood, Colorado. Starz is the
network distributing and broadcasting the Infringing Work, and at all relevant times was doing
and transacting business within the State of New York.
11.

Defendants “John Doe Entities” 1 - 10 are corporations, partnerships and/or

limited liability companies whose identities are currently unkown, but have infringed Plaintiffs’
copyright in the Original Work in direct violation and contravention of 17 U.S.C. §§ 101 et seq.
and 106 et seq. The identity of these entities will become known with discovery.
12.

Defendants “John Does” 1 - 10 are individuals whose identities are currently

unknown, but who have infringed Plaintiffs’ copyright in the Original Work in direct violation
and contravention of 17 U.S.C. §§ 101 et seq. and 106 et seq. The identity of these individuals
will become known with discovery.
FACTUAL BACKGROUND
13.

In or about late 2009, Plaintiffs completed writing a script for the pilot episode of

an original teleplay about an African-American Protagonist’s work as a drug dealer and

 Case 1:16-cv-07494 Document 1 Filed 09/26/16 Page 4 of 14

subsequent attempts to launder his money and then “go legit” while struggling with the balance
between his friendship with an irish gangster and his female love interest, entitled “Dangerous,”
the Original Work.
14.

The Original Work was duly copyrighted and bears an effective date of Writer’s

Guild of America (“WGA”) registration of February 20, 2009.
15.

Plaintiffs are the sole and lawful proprietor of all rights, title and interest in and to

the copyrighted Original Work.
16.

The substantial, salient and original aspects of the Original Work, copyrightable

under the Act and the laws of the United States, are as follows: The Original Work centers
around an African-American Protagonist’s work as a drug dealer and subsequent attempts to
launder his money and then “go legit” while struggling with the balance between his friendship
with an irish gangster and his female love interest.
•

The Original Work also concentrates the relatively young African-American
Protagonist from Queens, NY who’s occupation as a drug dealer is in conflict
with his desire to leave the drug trade.

•

The Original Work also concentrates on the Protagonist’s desire to leave to the
occupation of drug dealing and his subsequent struggle and conflict to still protect
himself.

•

The Original Work finds the Protagonist focusing more on his legitimate
Entertainment business as a conduit out of the business of illegal drug dealing.

•

Of significant focus in the original work is the strong influence of a woman who
desires to keep the Protagonist in the business of illegal drug dealing.

 Case 1:16-cv-07494 Document 1 Filed 09/26/16 Page 5 of 14

•

The Original Work features a unique bond between the Protagonist and his Irish,
passionate and emotional good friend, Shamrock.

•

The Original Work features the Protagonist’s Mother as a dominant figure who is
influencing him to remain in the illegal drug dealing business.

•

The Original Work also features a Protagonist who is heavily influenced by the
death of his father.

•

The Original Work features a protagonist who is loving and affable with his
family but ruthless and hostile in his business pursuits.

•

The Original Work also features a sidekick who is secretly jealous of the
Protagonist.

•

The Original Work is set in New York City and features upscale fashion of the
day.

•

The Mood of the Original Work is dramatic, suspenseful and occasionally violent.

•

The Theme of the Original Work is an intense crime drama with a drug-dealing
mogul trying to view his new entertainment business as a profitable replacement
to the dangers of drug-dealing.

•

The pace of the Original Work is set as a one-hour drama series, fast-paced and
comprised of several scenes.

•

The dialogue of the Original Work is fast and heavy laden with the use of
metaphorical slang and strong language, including but limited to the liberal use of
the f-word, indicative of the way gangsters talk.

•

The dialogue of the Original Work also reveals the Protagonist as an incredibly
principled man who is well read in street vernacular as well as business matters.

 Case 1:16-cv-07494 Document 1 Filed 09/26/16 Page 6 of 14

17.

In or about late 2010, Plaintiffs delivered a copy of the Original Work to Karen

Peterkin and James Dubose, film and television executives based in Los Angeles, California.
18.

Upon information and belief, on or about March 14, 2011, James Dubose met

with Defendant Jackson and pitched the Original Work to Defendant Jackson to determine if
Defendant Jackson would help bing the Original Work to television.
19.

Upon information and belief, the copy of the Original Work sent to Defendant

Jackson bore notice of Plaintiffs’ copyright ownership in the material on the front page of the
script.
20.

Defendant Jackson never contacted Plaintiffs regarding the Original Work.

21.

Rather than contact Plaintiffs, Defendants, while fully aware of Plaintiffs’

copyright in the Original Work, willfully and improperly began developing, producing and
filming their own television show derived from Plaintiffs’ Original Work.
22.

On June 7, 2014, Defendant Starz first aired the Infringing Work, entitled

“Power.” Though certain aspects of the Original Work were deliberately changed in an attempt
to obfuscate the origin of the Infringing Work, the salient aspects of the Original Work shine
through.
23.

The substantially similar and infringing aspects of the Infringing Work are as

follows:
•

The Infringing Work centers around a relatively young African American
Protagonist from Queens, New York who decides to exit the drug trade and
pursue legitimate entertainment and business endeavors to transition away from
illegal drug dealing.

 Case 1:16-cv-07494 Document 1 Filed 09/26/16 Page 7 of 14

•

The Infringing Work also concentrates on a bond between the African-American
protagonist and his Irish right hand man.

•

Also of significant focus in the Infringing Work is the Protagonist’s loving and
affable nature with his family but violent and ruthless nature in business.

•

The pace of the Infringing Work is also fast paced and set within an hour-long
episode with several scenes.

•

The Infringing Work also features a Protagonist deeply influenced by the death of
his father.

•

The Infringing Work also features a strong female figure who desires for the
Protagonist to quit his dreams of legitimacy in order to continue in the fast life of
drug dealing.

•

The Infringing Work also features a sidekick, Shawn, who is secretly jealous of
the Protagonist.

•

The Mood of the Infringing Work is also dramatic, suspenseful and occasionally
violent.

•

The Theme of the Infringing Work is also an intense crime drama with a drugdealing mogul trying to view his new entertainment business as a profitable
replacement to the dangers of drug-dealing

•

The dialogue of the Infringing Work is also fast and heavy laden with the use of
metaphorical slang and strong language, including but limited to the liberal use of
the f-word, indicative of the way gangsters talk.

•

The dialogue of the Infringing Work also reveals the Protagonist as an incredibly
principled man who is well read in street vernacular as well as business matters

 Case 1:16-cv-07494 Document 1 Filed 09/26/16 Page 8 of 14

24.

Moreover, and as further evidence of the originality of Plaintiffs’ Original Work

and Defendants’ infringement thereof, there currently are other shows featuring a drug dealer
attempting to legitimize his business, such as “Empire.” However, these television shows in no
way reflect the substantial, salient and original aspects of the Original Work, copyrightable under
the Act and the laws of the United States, is not derived from the Original Work, and is not the
subject of the instant action
AS FOR A FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION
(Preliminary Injunction)
25.

Plaintiffs restate and reallege each and every allegation contained in this

Complaint with the same force and effect as if fully set forth herein.
26.

Plaintiffs are the sole and lawful proprietor of all rights, title and interest in and to

the copyrighted Original Work.
27.

Defendants had access to the Original Work by virtue of Ms. Peterkin’s and Mr.

Dubose’s pitch of the Original Work to Defendant Jackson.
28.

Defendants, without Plaintiffs’ authorization, knowledge or consent, willfully

infringed on Plaintiffs’ Original Work by causing to be written, produced, and
broadcasted on national television a derivative work entitled “Power”-the Infringing
Work--which is substantially similar to Plaintiffs’ Original Work.
29.

Accordingly, Defendants have infringed Plaintiffs’ copyright in the Original

Work in direct violation and contravention of 17 U.S.C. §§ 101 et seq. and 106 et seq.
30.

Plaintiffs will incur substantial and irreparable injury if Defendants’ are allowed

to continue their infringement of the Original Work pending the resolution of this action.

 Case 1:16-cv-07494 Document 1 Filed 09/26/16 Page 9 of 14

31.

By reason of the foregoing, Plaintiffs are entitled to a preliminary and permanent

injunction pursuant to 17 U.S.C. § 502 enjoining and restraining Defendants from further
infringement or broadcast of Plaintiffs’ copyrighted Original Work.

AS FOR A SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION
(Actual Damages for Copyright Infringement)
32.

Plaintiffs repeat and reallege each and every allegation contained in this

Complaint with the same force and effect as if fully set forth herein.
33.

Plaintiffs are the sole and lawful proprietor of all rights, title and interest in and to

the copyrighted Original Work.
34.

Defendants had access to the Original Work by virtue of Ms. Peterkin’s and Mr.

Dubose’s pitch of the Original Work to Defendant Jackson.
35.

Defendants, without Plaintiffs’ authorization, knowledge or consent, willfully

infringed on Plaintiffs’ Original Work by causing to be written, produced, and broadcasted on
national television a derivative work entitled “Power”-the Infringing Work--which is
substantially similar to Plaintiffs’ Original Work.
36.

Accordingly, Defendants have infringed Plaintiffs’ copyright in the Original

Work in direct violation and contravention of 17 U.S.C. §§ 101 et seq. and 106 et seq.
37.

By reason of the foregoing, Plaintiffs are entitled to actual damages and profits

pursuant to 17 U.S.C. § 504(b) in an amount to be determined at trial.

AS FOR A THIRD CAUSE OF ACTION
(Statutory Damages for Copyright Infringement)

 Case 1:16-cv-07494 Document 1 Filed 09/26/16 Page 10 of 14

38.

Plaintiffs repeat and reallege each and every allegation contained in this

Complaint with the same force and effect as if fully set forth herein.
39.

Plaintiffs are the sole and lawful proprietor of all rights, title and interest in and to

the copyrighted Original Work.
40.

Defendants had access to the Original Work by virtue of Ms. Peterkin’s and Mr.

Dubose’s pitch of the Original Work to Defendant Jackson.
41.

Defendants, without Plaintiffs’ authorization, knowledge or consent, willfully

infringed on Plaintiffs’ Original Work by causing to be written, produced, and broadcasted on
national television a derivative work entitled “Power”-the Infringing Work--which is
substantially similar to Plaintiffs’ Original Work.
42.

Accordingly, Defendants have infringed Plaintiffs’ copyright in the Original

Work in direct violation and contravention of 17 U.S.C. §§ 101 et seq. and 106 et seq.
43.

By reason of the foregoing, Plaintiffs are entitled to statutory damages pursuant to

17 U.S.C. § 504(c)(1), in an amount not less than $750 or more than $30,000 per
broadcast of the Infringing work as statutory damages pursuant to 17 U.S.C. §504(c)(1),
and the sum of $150,000 per broadcast of the Infringing Work as additional statutory
damages pursuant to 17 U.S.C. §504(c)(2).

AS FOR A FOURTH CAUSE OF ACTION
(Attorney’s Fees and Costs)
44.

Plaintiffs repeat and reallege each and every allegation contained in this

Complaint with the same force and effect as if fully set forth herein.

 Case 1:16-cv-07494 Document 1 Filed 09/26/16 Page 11 of 14

45.

Plaintiffs are the sole and lawful proprietor of all rights, title and interest in and to

the copyrighted Original Work.
46.

Defendants had access to the Original Work by virtue of Ms. Peterkin’s and Mr.

Dubose’s pitch of the Original Work to Defendant Jackson.
47.

Defendants, without Plaintiffs’ authorization, knowledge or consent, willfully

infringed on Plaintiffs’ Original Work by causing to be written, produced, and broadcasted on
national television a derivative work entitled “Power”-the Infringing Work--which is
substantially similar to Plaintiffs’ Original Work.
48.

Accordingly, Defendants have infringed Plaintiffs’ copyright in the Original

Work in direct violation and contravention of 17 U.S.C. §§ 101 et seq. and 106 et seq.
49.

By reason of the foregoing, Plaintiffs respectfully request the recovery of all costs

as well as attorneys’ fees in connection with the prosecution of this case pursuant to 17 U.S.C. §
505.
AS FOR A FIFTH CAUSE OF ACTION
(Constructive Trust )
50.

Plaintiffs repeat and reallege each and every allegation contained in this

Complaint with the same force and effect as if fully set forth herein.
51.

By virtue of their wrongful conduct, Defendants have illegally received money

and profits that rightfully belong to Plaintiffs.
52.

Defendants hold the illegally received money and profits in the form of bank

accounts, real property or personal property that can be located and traced.
53.

Defendants hold the money and profits that they have illegally received as

constructive trustees for the benefit of plaintiffs.

 Case 1:16-cv-07494 Document 1 Filed 09/26/16 Page 12 of 14

AS FOR A SIXTH CAUSE OF ACTION
(Accounting)

54.

Plaintiffs repeat and reallege each and every allegation contained in this

Complaint with the same force and effect as if fully set forth herein.
55.

Pursuant to 17 U.S.C. § 504, Plaintiff is entitled to recover all of Defendants’

profits attributable to their acts of infringement.
56.

Pursuant to 17 U.S.C. § 504, Plaintiffs are entitled to recover actual damages

sustained by virtue of Defendants’ acts of infringement.
57.

The amount of money due from Defendants is presently unknown to Plaintiffs and

cannot be ascertained without a detailed accounting by Defendants of all profits obtained from
their marketing, distribution, and national television broadcasting of the Infringing Work.

WHEREFORE, the Plaintiffs respectfully request this Court to enter a judgment
against the Defendants for their willful writing, producing, and broadcasting on national
television a derivative work entitled “Power”-the Infringing Work-which is substantially similar
to Plaintiffs’ Original Work which resulted in, and continues to result in, injuries to Plaintiffs.
Accordingly, Plaintiffs respectfully requests that this Court::
a. Issue a preliminary and permanent injunction against the Defendants, and all
others in active concert or participation with Defendants, from further broadcast

 Case 1:16-cv-07494 Document 1 Filed 09/26/16 Page 13 of 14

of the Infringing Work or other infringement of Plaintiffs’ protected copyrighted
Original Work;
b. Order the Defendants to recall and destroy all copies of the Infringing Work or
any other derivatives of Plaintiffs’ Original Work, in whatever form they may
exist;
c. Order Defendants to pay Plaintiff an amount to be determined at trial in actual
damages and profits, plus interest, pursuant to 17 U.S.C. §504(b), the exact
amount to be determined at trial;
d. Order Defendants to pay Plaintiff not less than $750 or more than $30,000 per
broadcast of the Infringing work as damages pursuant to 17 U.S.C. §504(c)(1);
e. Order Defendants to pay Plaintiff the sum of $150,000 per broadcast of the
Infringing Work as additional statutory damages pursuant to 17 U.S.C.
§504(c)(2);
f. Order Defendants to pay Plaintiff both the costs of this action and the reasonable
attorneys’ fees incurred by Plaintiff in prosecuting this action pursuant to 17
U.S.C. §505;
g. Order the imposition of a constructive trust over Defendants’ profits which
resulted from their infringement of Plaintiffs’ Original Work;
h. Order that Defendants to provide Plaintiff a full and complete accounting of all
profits obtained from their marketing, distribution, and national television
broadcasting of the Infringing Work and any other amounts due and owing to
Plaintiff as a result of Defendants’ infringement; and
i. Grant Plaintiff such other and additional relief as the Court deems just and proper.

 Case 1:16-cv-07494 Document 1 Filed 09/26/16 Page 14 of 14

JURY DEMAND

Pursuant to Rule 38(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Plaintiff respectfully demands
that this proceeding be tried to a jury.
Dated: September 23, 2016
Brooklyn, NY
By:

_____/ss/Keith_White, Esq._____
KEITH WHITE, PLLC
KENNETH J. MONTGOMERY, PLLC
ALEXIS PADILLA
Attorneys for Plaintiffs
198A Rogers Avenue
Brooklyn, NY 11225
718-403-9261